Obama to ban the sale/transfer of ALL Semi-Automatic weapons.

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis
And according to your article, third world nations have a far worse gun crime, do you want me to compare you to a third world country while develped
countries like Finland and the Swiss (and they have the same laws more or less as the States when it comes to weapons) have far less gun crime then
the US?

Thanks for playing.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Tomis_Nexis]

You just proved my point. Nations such as Finland and Switzerland have similar rates of firearm ownership as the US, but much lower violent crime
rates.

This should lead one to the obvious conclusion contained in the article: firearm ownership rates have no bearing on violent crime. Socio-economic
status is the true predictor of a violent society, and there's no question that we have a problem in that regard in our inner cities.

Until you solve that problem, as the third world examples prove, you can pass as many gun laws as you want: it will have no effect.

"A 1997 Justice Department report on murders in the U.S. shows that our country has a murder rate of seven victims per 100,000 population per year.
There are a number of well-known examples of countries with more liberal gun laws and lower murder rates than the U.S. One is Finland, with a murder
rate of 2.9. Israel is another example; although its population is heavily armed, Israel's murder rate is only 1.4. In Switzerland, gun ownership is
a way of life. Its murder rate is 2.7."

The lowest huh? And these countries have more liberal laws then the states.

And your website is very biased. It keeps comparing third world nations gun crimes to the states. That's like racing a Corvette against a Echo.

And good effort on providing a worthy source such as an American site called Guns and Ammo...really credible.

I'm sorry but you're jumping to conclusions here...You're saying that because there are countries out there that have liberal gun laws and low
murder rates, then gun ownership has no effect on violence...The truth is, if there are less guns, there are less shootings. You make it harder to get
guns, then less people will have them. I think that would certainly impact the gun violence rate.

Again, explain why nations such as Switzerland, Finland and Israel can have very high firearm ownership rates but very low murder rates. Yet,
third world nations can also have strict gun laws and very high murder rates.

The conclusion is an obvious one: firearm ownership rates are not the determining factor.

It doesn't matter. Less guns in circulation means less people will have them. You make them harder to get, and it becomes more expensive to get them
illegally. Not every criminal will be able to afford them.

You jack up the price of crack and less people will do it, because less people can get it.

I'm not saying that it has *no* effect, but that it will not be THE determining factor. As data shows, there's something else at play here.
Even on a state-by-state basis in the US, high firearms ownership rates do not translate to high rates of violent crime. Sometimes they do, but
often they do not.

My point is simply that there is no reason to ban firearms when most use their weapons responsibly.

Perspective is an interesting thing. If you go to the CDC website, you'll also find that as many people are killed in the US every year from
bicycle accidents as are killed by rifles (about 750 in both cases). I'm sure than the assault weapons ban proponents won't be arguing a ban on
bicycles anytime soon, either.

That's one I've never understood. When 80% of all firearms murders are committed with handguns and well under 10% with rifles...they go after
rifles. Its idiotic, and has long since convinced me that its less about public safety and more about control.

This may or may not be on topic, but seems very few posts on this site stay on topic anyways, so I guess its of little matter. The thread was about
Obama wanting to ban semi-autos. In a couple of pages of posts it has become a gun rights slug fest. Another recent thread, started off with Tyson
giving a muslim holiday off, that turned into a war zone between religions, I could keep going with this thought. Being fairly new to this site, I
must ask some of the veterans, is this common? Do people here post just to get riled up and attack each other or do people actually take the time to
try and learn from each other?

Again failed logic as criminals use money from crime. Crackheads steal to get the money, gun criminals are no different either buying stolen guns or
committing more crime to buy more expensive guns.

The problem is those people doing it.

I'm gonna step back for a while so the opinions can come up fairly. UK folks really don't figure in to this equation as they have no voting rights
in the states and gave up their guns already in favor of knife crime?

Once you get several pages into a topic, its not that uncommon for the original topic to branch into something only somewhat related. And yes,
that's the case here and it is becoming a pro/anti gun rights slug fest and probably shouldn't be. Its probably best to just drop it since it's
not going to change anyone's mind,

Unfortunately it is very common and it is done by paid personnel. There are several threads covering the tactics these conspirators use. In fact there
is an entire forum covering disinformation and the derail of topics here.

We can look back at every poster and see what tactics they are using and know who they are. Part of the problem is these people brought into the light
to stand good for their deeds have paid monkeys to muck things up. Its here and every other forum out there.

I just wantd to point out this recent article because the vibe here is that Obama will place a gun ban once elected. Which isnt true. He said he
wouldnt do it and thats that.
If you want to discuss voting record thats fine, that bill you are talking about dates back 10 years ago, allow the guy to change his mind once in a
while no?

If you disagree I would like you to give me a reputable source not some republican blog.

He should be given a chance to change his mind. At the same time, I don't think believe it gives him a free pass on his prior votes and support of
gun control legislation. He should be asked very specifically about what types of weapons he believes should be allowed and what should not be.

Given the preponderance of the evidence, I tend to believe that he holds a view similar to most politicians in his party and that he supports a very
watered down 2nd amendment. I think he more or less is a 'weapons of the day' believer and that if it didn't exist at the time the Bill of Rights
was written, he opposes it.

And its not really a political partisan thing for me, even though I do lean strongly conservative and to the Republican side (I am not registered
with a party, however). I was very much against both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani during the Republican primaries for this very reason. Romney,
in particular, supposedly had a late-life switch to a pro-gun stance. Yeah right. I didn't believe him, nor do I believe Obama. There's
simply too much evidence indicating otherwise and his switch appears to be politically motivated, much as I believe Romney's was.

reply to post by salchanraMost Gun Manufacturer's DO Include Safety
Locks With Their Firearms .It's Up To The Owners To Use Them If They So Choose . I Myself Don't Use Them As I Keep My Firearms At The Ready But I
Do Keep My Firearms Locked In My Gun safe When My Grandchildren Visit . Other Than That I Say The Government Has No Right To Mandate Anything To Us
Gun Owners .

"...the passage of legal protection for the gun industry would mark an enormous setback for gun control advocates and for leaders of cities such as
Chicago, who have filed suit against gun dealers and manufacturers."

www.pittsburghlive.com...
"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot
during) altercations.

Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of
handguns?

"While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are
necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing
one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused
by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady
Law.

b. assault weapons?

Yes.

c. ammunition for handguns and assault weapons?

Text
"I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns."

36. Do you support legislation
a. mandating background checks of purchasers of weapons at gun shows, through the internet and through print advertisements?

Quick follow up. 4750 reads in less than 24 hrs, lots of flags and stars.

The message is clear, and the link at the beginning of the post should be distributed and posted at other forms and on blogs as well as the ATS link
sent to the McCain folks so they can see what the hottest topic is for Americans in the election, even ahead of the economy.

Please do so. I am doing nothing of the sort on my own other than bringing it up here.

I personally don't care for any of the candidates and did not intend to vote, however that has changed, as I am now voting to protect what is mine
and the right to protect my family in the manner I see fit. The same rights I was BORN with as an American.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.